Over the past few years, particularly since the election of Obama in 2008, I have noticed a growing phenomenon that some have begun to interchangeably refer to as “intra-white status whoring” and “intra-white moral posturing”. In other words, it has become quite fashionable for one group of whites to accuse another group of whites of being “racist”. It has gotten to the point where whites fight over who the “good whites” and “bad whites” are. The “good whites” are usually those who are of like political persuasion, while the “bad whites” are the political opponents. Whites probably accuse other whites of racism more often these days than blacks ever do.

Note that I did not mention “white guilt” in any of this. This has almost nothing to do with “guilt”, over even blacks at all. It is all about appearing to be morally superior to those whites. In fact, the person accusing you of racism is arguing that YOU should feel guilty since he/she is one of the “good” whites and YOU are a “bad” white. Evenif they “apologize”, it is just a bunch of moral grand standing designed to make them look good. It is not about blacks because even when their children get married, there’s not a black in sight amongst the guests. Doesn’t matter. He’s a “good” white person (as proven by his moral grandstanding), while his political opponents are “bad”.

There are people of every political persuasion that are guilty of this, but it takes different forms.

For Liberals it usually looks like this:

“Being white sucks! Let’s jog against white privilege (to make ourselves look and feel good)! If only those conservative whites would realize that they are the racists and that they use racist ‘dog whistles’ and they are the cause for all the troubles black communities and be more like us, then everything will be ok! We will show them!” (puts $500 iphone back into $1,000 bag, hops in BMW to attend an all white cocktail party in Georgetown)

Conservatives tend to fall into two groups:

Group A (e.g. Ann Coulter): “No, we, conservatives, are not the racists! YOU, Liberals, are the real racists! The Confederacy was really a Liberal state! The Nazis were Liberals! Jim Crow was a Liberal policy! Detroit was destroyed by Liberal policies (you mean like Portland??)” (puts $500 Samsung Galaxy S4 back into $1,000 bag, hops in Cadillac Escalade to attend an all white cocktail party in McLean)

Group B (e.g. Joe Scarborough): “Those conservatives are racists, while I am not! We ‘good‘ white conservatives need to purge those racists out of our party!” (puts $500 iphone back into suit jacket, hops in limousine to attend an all white cocktail party on Manhattan’s upper West Side Liberals)

None of these white elites actually care about blacks (or any other non-Asian minority for that matter). None of these people want to live around significant numbers of blacks or Latinos. All of them, if given a choice, send their children to overwhelmingly white schools with $35K/year tuition. For them a “diverse” school or neighborhood is one that is around 80% white, 15% Asian and about 5% black and Latino combined. A school that is say, 25% white 40% Latino and 35% black is not “diverse” (in the “good” sense), and they would never want to send their children to such a “poor environment”.

Now, there is nothing wrong with sending one’s child to an 80% white school or living in a neighborhood that happens to be 80% white or even paying $35K for private schooling, but my issue is that while these same people spend lots of money to protect themselves and their families from from true “diversity”, they will, at the same time, demonize other whites as “racists” for desiring the same things. And by they way, please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. Living in a truly diverse community does not make one of higher moral status either.

In the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict, we see it on full display. Twitter is still buzzing with whites saying that “it sucks to be white” and crying about “white privilege” and pointing their fingers at whites they don’t like and crying “racism” all in an attempt to insulate themselves from the charges. It is getting nauseating because we can’t have a true discussion on race in this country without someone (probably a white person) screaming “racism”. No one can ask if blacks in America are somehow immune from criticism? We can’t dare even broach the topic of whether blacks are never to be held responsible for their own failings. We can not discuss the topic of out of control crime in black communities across the union. If we can not hold them accountable, can we at least ask them to hold their own accountable? So to insulate ourselves from charges of racism, we just ignore the topic, while all of us answer those questions with our actions in the form of where we live and where we choose to send our children to school. (Oh, and accuse anyone who brings any of the topics up of “racism”)

This is why I usually call them out by asking them if they are actually living inside of the black communities or if they are going into black communities and spending significant time trying to help improve the very situation they are lamenting (and I mean really help, not going in one day and taking a few pictures to post on Facebook) or are they simply using this subject as a weapon against fellow whites? I would ask Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity as quickly as I would Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow.

Truth is, as I mentioned in another post, that we all live in the same community and want good. Let’s resist the intra-white moral posturing even when it comes from our own side.

Comments

Written by Squiddy about 2 years ago.

Thing is, the cry of “racism” is very often simply a means to a (political) end – the truth doesn’t matter – these charges are weapons, not “facts.”

Ad hominem attacks like this are used to simply diminish and silence political opponents – and it works – for example, everyone now “knows” the Tea Party is a bunch of racist loons, and that “George Bush hates black people” – the actual truth? Doesn’t matter.

Whether people like Joe Scarborough and Eric actually believe what they say when they level the charge of “rascism” doesn’t really matter, either – they believe the “ism” charges are the ultimate trump card in political discussions – a weapon to be hurled – and for the moment, it’s true.

I just shake my head, every day, as black leaders repeatedly trot out the line about how they must now tell their kids that it’s open season on young black men, that they can be legally shot by any white person for “walking while black” – the truth is, of course, that far and away the biggest threat to young black men are other young black ment- but again, what does the truth matter when there are political points to be scored?

Similarly, those who say “We must have a conversation about this” – I wonder if they’re just well-meaning, hopelessly naive souls who earnestly believe such nonsense – we’ve heard this time and again, whenever some identity group feels aggrieved. Oddly, no such conversation is ever required when, for example, some bored black teen-ager shoots a baby in the head, for no reason at all.

Racial and other identity politics “work” for the Progressive movement – if someone were to wave a wand, and remove every last dram of racist thinking from every Conservative, it wouldn’t change a thing – these precise attacks would continue apace.

It’s funny, though – you’re right about one thing – those who lecture the loudest about other people’s alleged racism are those who almost exclusively live in neighborhoods of people that look exactly like them. For those of us who live in highly integrated neighborhoods, we know the truth of race relations and racial and class stereotypes to be far more nuanced than the shrill cries of the of the self-segregating hypocrites would have you believe.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 2 years ago.

The “we must have a conversation” usually means: let’s talk about your racism.

It’s like when one says that apologies are called for, they actually mean that you must apologize, not them. Same thing with the “conversation”. It’s supposed to be a monologue not a dialogue that goes like this:

“We are not talking about our racial discrimination against others or our self inflicted problems. No, we are talking about your racial discrimination against us. We are perpetual victims and you are picking on us again. We are feeling very sorry for ourselves and you are to blame! But enough about us. Let’s talk about YOU. So why are YOU picking on us?”

I want to see how many of these people will be forced upon places like McLean, Georgetown and Potomac, MD

Written by Squiddy about 2 years ago.

Good God, it took my neighborhood years to recover from HUD’s last inept attempt under Cisneros to do this – and he used precisely the same language to justify it.

I mean, it sounded good – but the reality of what actually occurred was they brought inner-city drug dealers into the suburbs; they brought crack, which created a firestorm that burned through many teen-ager’s lives here. For awhile, our community center was a nighttime open-air drug market.

They similarly “socially engineered” my wife’s hometown, a sleepy former coal-mining town, mostly then-occupied by the elderly. They relocated chronically unemployed people from Philly and Camden to this town to save the government money – housing was cheap there. And so, too, were the lives of those elderly, defenseless against a tidal wave of criminals and thugs who terrorize them to this day.

On the positive side, given the make-up of my community, I can look forward to the day when Eric is forcibly relocated here, to increase the diversity …

Written by ACTivist about 2 years ago.

I really get tired over this conversation/non-conversation on racism. I know what it can cause. (in the form of a destructive force) and I just don’t use it or have it in conversation within my daily life. I have no problem countering liberal/prog/radical statements toward me with the counter, “oh, your one of those scumbags”. They become an instant fly catcher or they become irate. I don’t play the “race” game and have zero respect for those that do.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 2 years ago.

Been having a “dialogue” with the perpetually aggrieved and inflamed victims/hate group over at the crucible blog, where I was told that they will write verrrrrryyyy slowwwwwllllyyyy for me since I am obviously mentally defective in not agreeing with them on the meaning of meaning at any given moment (this from a place that used to ban people for saying “lame”, since it is “ableist” defamatory language), and the new conceit there is that “ad hominem” only applies if the person does not refute your point, i.e. since the person calling me retarded also went down a tangent of providing their preferred definitions of words that I had used one of, their labelling of me with insults was not “ad hominem”, which now means _____________. (today)

“Dialogue” means sitting quietly and penitently to be abused, and then tugging your forelock and saying “thank you!”

Read a very interesting article, that postulated that progs were good at language skills (talking) at an early age and received praise for being so advanced, and are ever seeking that feeling of being the smart kid for being so verbal, which is why the talky professions (politics, “journalism”, “education”, advocacy) are chock full of infantile progs, unlike…engineering, manufacturing, etc. Some merit there, I think!

“It is not about blacks because even when their children get married, there’s not a black in sight amongst the guests.”

You do realize there is a black person or two in that picture, don’t you?

I am no fan of social engineering exercises to be sure but… From your Investor.com editorial:

“The stated purpose is to use the data to compel local officials to loosen zoning laws and build more public housing, thereby offering more poor inner-city minorities better opportunities for housing and education.

But the unstated purpose is forced racial integration. The suburbs are just too white for Obama and his race-mongering social engineers.”

Now THERE is an unbiased source for your news… If this is the input on which you conclude that there is no more racism to discuss in America, then there really IS nothing to discuss.

“Whether people like Joe Scarborough and Eric actually believe what they say when they level the charge of “rascism” doesn’t really matter, either – they believe the “ism” charges are the ultimate trump card in political discussions – a weapon to be hurled – and for the moment, it’s true.”

I don’t know about Joe, but this is NOT what I believe at all. You can argue that what I see as racist statements are really not racist at all – that is a fair argument (if incorrect). But I am NOT making the charge without reason NOR am I making it to stifle discussion. If that were true, I would make it and run away – I am here and willing to engage – is that not proof enough regarding my motivations?

Written by Barbara Munsey about 2 years ago.

No Eric, it isn’t proof of motivation, because your habit is to repetitively level charges, and simply switch strawmen when backed into a corner. But true, you don’t run away!

Written by Ed Myers about 2 years ago.

“..what is needed to fix (racism).”

Whites becoming the minority and suddenly waking up to the discrimination built into cultural and political life that they enjoy without realizing it.

This happened with marriage. Married people became the beneficiaries of all kinds of perks until other households tried to get equal treatment. Suddenly the greed was apparent and those with the least shame looked for any way possible to protect their institutional discrimination and we ended up with DOMA and constitutional amendments defining marriage. Now that courts have recognized the inequality, social conservatives have a thorny problem: get rid of all the special treatment given to married people because it is now helping same-sex couples or keep trying to preserve the institutional discrimination as long as possible in the face of the obvious.

Look for the parallels in race relations. A starting example is if society treated gun owners like we do black teenagers. If you see someone carrying a gun that would be justification to run them over with your car, or otherwise incapacitate them as an act of self defense to prevent anyone from getting shot. No jury of women from gun-free communities would convict of murder if the incapacitation turned deadly because their experiences are that all gun owners are dangerous criminals for owning a gun.

Written by Squiddy about 2 years ago.

I dunno, Eric, your repeated assertion that everyone (excluding you, of course) that posts here is a racist seems to me to be more of the “bomb-thrower” type than “reasonably seeking discourse” to me …

In the broader view, I imagine every human being has at least a thread of “racism” – suspicion of “otherness” is almost certainly programmed into our (pre-human) genes – so, while it might be academically accurate to say everyone is a racist, that’s not a particularly useful description – especially when accusing others of racism, and by definition, excluding oneself.

Pointing fingers at entire groups of people and calling them “racists” is, when you get down to it, pretty ironic, as it demonstrates precisely the same lack of discrimination that the most ardent racist hate-monger exhibits.

Written by Gaius Baltar about 2 years ago.

You do realize there is a black person or two in that picture, don’t you?

I didn’t see any, but it’s not like I went through the picture face by face. Either way, I think you got my larger point in that it is an overwhelmingly white crowd, which btw is perfectly fine (and to be expected under normal circumstances) except that the person sponsoring the wedding trashes other whites for doing the exact same thing. THAT is my problem.

If this is the input on which you conclude that there is no more racism to discuss in America

Please do not put words in my mouth Eric. I never said there is no racism in America. I said that no one wants to have a two sided dialogue on the topic (at least not those calling for “discussion”). “Discussion” for these people usually means “bad” whites listening while “good” whites and blacks (like Sharpton) lecture the “bad” whites on how evil they are and ending with some sort of shake down.

On the social engineering, if this HUD program happens, I certainly hope that they will equally enforce some “diversity” on rich Liberal areas such as Beverly Hills and Manhattan’s upper East and West sides because it is time for THEM to embrace diversity it in THEIR neighborhoods and schools. While we are at it, HUD should also put in public housing projects right next door to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the Bushes. And while we are at it, don’t we need more diversity in the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard too?

And if they are true to their beliefs, they would also send their children to the local schools.

However, if this HUD program does happen, I figure all of those areas (and others like them) will get waivers, while those who do not receive waivers will be left to resist the efforts and be labeled as “racist” (by those who got waivers)

Nice fight over there at LP, Barb. Eplurb is still trying desperately to get back at you with his latest thread. Actually, I think you did those fellows a favor. Eplurb, the Dog, and Johnnie must get tired of talking to each other all the time.

“dunno, Eric, your repeated assertion that everyone (excluding you, of course) that posts here is a racist seems to me to be more of the “bomb-thrower” type than “reasonably seeking discourse” to me …”

Not everyone, Squiddy but quite a few, imo. I can think of three or so right off the bat. So, really, when would it NOT be considered bomb-throwing (by the receiver) to be labelled a racist? Bigot, racist, etc.. Those are clearly incendiary labels and I am sure the recipient does not consider himself/herself to be a racist – they never do. Many of the statements put forth here are simply elaborate justification ploys so the racist author can maintain the facade and self-delusion that his/her tenents are not in actuality rather repulsive.

According to Troll, if you point out any racial differences that are NOT the fault of White people, you’re racist.

Written by ed myers about 2 years ago.

Jack said: “So why are Asians and Jews doing so well? Are Whites racist IN FAVOR of Asians and Jews?”

1) I don’t know that they are “doing so well”. Establish your criteria for comparison. I don’t think income or wealth is the best measure of happiness.
2) Jews are a religious/ethnic group, not a racial group.
3) When you measure a non-random subset of a population you cannot use that measurement to make predictions about the whole. Jews who emigrated to the U.S. from Europe during and after WW2 were the elite with economic wealth and business connections. That doesn’t mean that the Jewish ethnic group as a whole are better at running a business than any other group. Asians who immigrate are disproportionately H1B visa holders making the subset skewed towards highly educated technocrats with relatively high salary. Blacks who survived slavery were the elite of their warrior class and less likely to be skilled as artisans or intellectuals, which in a post-industrial world, makes their natural skills cherished most in sports.

None of this explains institutional racism. It does explain that your stats on difference between groups is bogus without some evidence of cause and effect.

Fine. Israelites, then. Still, the vast majority of Jews are Israelites. Considering the rampant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the Demonrat Party, certainly you cannot say that there is no discrimination against Jews.

> Jews who emigrated to the U.S. from Europe during and after WW2 were the elite with
> economic wealth and business connections. That doesn’t mean that the Jewish ethnic
> group as a whole are better at running a business than any other group.

Oh, Ed, you are so “special.” So many American Jews came over here from Russia and Poland fleeing the pogroms before WWII. Entire villages of Jews were wiped out. Before and during WWII, both rich and poor fled to the United States. Just as the poor in Mexico leave because there is nothing to leave behind, so did many Jews in Europe.

Like the ones who build the First Transcontinental Railroad? Like those Japanese we interned during WWII?

> Blacks who survived slavery were the elite of their warrior class and less likely to be skilled
> as artisans or intellectuals, which in a post-industrial world, makes their natural skills cherished
> most in sports.

So it should not be a surprise that Blacks earn less than Whites, but that West African immigrants are the most educated racial/ethnic group in the U.S.

> None of this explains institutional racism.

Nor have YOU explained it. Is it anything, any law, and pattern of behavior, even by those groups themselves, that causes any clustering by race? Is Blacks’ choosing to live near other Blacks “institutional racism”? Is Blacks’ choosing to go to church with other Blacks “institutional racism”? Is Hispanics’ choosing to play “football” instead of basketball “institutional racism”? What of the Asians and Indians’ choosing to play chess — is that “institutional racism”?

Written by Ed Myers about 2 years ago.

I’m not a prog (whatever that is) and Israel is a country not a race. Since you don’t accept the same basic concepts about race that everyone else uses your comments are useless gibberish.

So what? There has certainly been anti-Israelite prejudice and discrimination over the years. But somehow, they STILL manage to have a median IQ above that of Whites and a median income above that of Whites. (We can’t really say “anti-Semitic,” because the Arabs are also Semites, and the progs love them.)

Written by Scout about 2 years ago.

Why would one compare “Israelite” IQ to “White” IQ? (By the way, isn’t the correct word “Israeli” and isn’t Israel a country? Would not Israel include a signficant ethnic Arab population?)

What, exactly, is racism? Is it racism to point out that some ethnic groups have significantly higher mean IQs than Whites, and that other groups have significantly lower mean IQs?

What is YOUR justification for your racist support of social policies that harm Blacks’ job prospects and destroy their families?

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

“Is it racism to point out that some ethnic groups have significantly higher mean IQs than Whites, and that other groups have significantly lower mean IQs?”

As I said before when you asked this question, if the purpose of pointing it out is to justify prejudice and bigotry, yes. You wish to justify paying blacks a lower salary than whites for the same work based on IQ differences (sic). That is racism.

“What is YOUR justification for your racist support of social policies that harm Blacks’ job prospects and destroy their families?”

> You wish to justify paying blacks a lower salary than whites for the same work….

No, I do not. However, we live in a technological society. Even many low-end jobs in the service sector require maintaining inventory, operating registers, etc. If two people are hired for the same job, but the IQ of one is 15 points lower than that of the other, the one with the lower IQ will probably require more training and make more mistakes. While the JOB will be the same between the two, their WORK will not be the same.

But let me ask you once again, since you seem unable to answer a simple yes-or-no question…

Do you believe that there is racism in employment in the United States?

Yes, you do. You support the Minimum Wage that disproportionately destroy the job prospects of Blacks, and you support the welfare programs that disproportionately destroy the families of Blacks. You also support government funding of Planned Parenthood, which kills Black babies at FOUR TIMES the rate White babies are killed.

YOU, sir, are a racist.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

Jack, your claim is built on false premises which has been demonstrated many time already. Once again, you resort to repeated false witness. YOU, sir, are a liar.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

“No, I do not. However, we live in a technological society. Even many low-end jobs in the service sector require maintaining inventory, operating registers, etc. If two people are hired for the same job, but the IQ of one is 15 points lower than that of the other, the one with the lower IQ will probably require more training and make more mistakes. While the JOB will be the same between the two, their WORK will not be the same.”

QED

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

Btw, Jack, maybe you need to look up the definition of racism. You are claiming that a person is a racist because he supports laws that you say cause harm to black people. Even if that were true, that does not make one a racist. Get a dictionary.

I understand, Troll. You want to keep Blacks poor and unemployed because then you can hire them to clean your house, do your laundry, and take care of your kids. Just like you want to get more illegal immigrants to come here so you can pay them substandard wages to cut your lawn.

But, of course, you don’t want them to have TOO many babies, or they would have to spend their time taking care of their own rather than yours. So you get the government to fund the killing of their babies.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

Jack, more lies. I and my kids cut my lawn. We do our own laundry and clean our own house. My wife gave up her career to care for our kids. You are a liar.

Written by Scout about 2 years ago.

I’d like to go back to Jack and these very clever “Israelites” he describes. Jack says that they are the descendants of Israel. “Israel” in this sense is a person (Jacob?) or an ancient country? Isn’t the more commonly accepted term for the group “Jews”? Is there a reason to distinguish between Israelites and Jews? Or is the point to make a distinction between a cultural category and a religious category (i.e., a secular Jew or a Jew who became a Buddhist would be an Israelite)?

I also saw in one of the comments above the implication (or at least I think I saw it) that Democrats are anti-Semitic because they are “anti-Israel”. Israel, as has been noted is a foreign country in a very difficult part of the world. There are a lot of aspects of its domestic and foreign policy that have huge implications for the United States. If one excepts to some of those policies, is that being “anti-Israel” or, worse yet, “anti-Semitic” (the Israeli Semites, as opposed to the Arab Semites)?

“Whites becoming the minority and suddenly waking up to the discrimination built into cultural and political life that they enjoy without realizing it.”
—
Ah, so it’s back to the “only whites can be racist” argument, is it? Oh yeah, certainly *I’ve* never met a racist Japanese, or Italian, or African, or Chinese, or …

Besides, it’s pretty useless as a definition – or a solution – the minority Afrikaner party of South Africa was the definition of racist, and managed to be in the minority for years.

“A starting example is if society treated gun owners like we do black teenagers”

Auggh, I’m pretty tired of that whole meme as well – you know, I’m “white”, and I grew up in South LA, on some rather mean streets; half of my high school was probably affiliated with one gang or another. And as a teenager, when I was out at night, I was often stopped by the police, once had a LA County Sheriff screaming at me with a gun barrel pressed to the back of my head, and was once beaten down by two sap-wielding Sheriff’s (in neither case, do I feel I “deserved” it – the first used the infamous “the car you’re in matches the description yada yada yada”, and the latter occurred because I witnessed a PCP-crazed young man attack several people, and when he attacked and punched an older woman who came outside to see what the commotion was, I had enough, and was in the process of beating the “gumby” into a pulp when the Sheriff’s arrived and beat *me* to a pulp – I still have the lumps on the my skull and the damaged neck to prove it.) And I was hardly the only person I knew who’d taken a beating from the Firestone Sheriffs.

You know what I learned? To avoid people, places, behaviors and dress that might cause others to associate me with people committing crimes, or a gang-member. (I also learned to run and jump fences like I was a scalded cat given a chance – nothing good ever came out of my police encounters.) In fact, I deliberately left SoCal because I felt I was probably going to come to a bad end if I didn’t.

But there’s no open season on black teen-agers – look at the “Stand Your Ground” database link I posted earlier – many of those “victims” were white, and many of the shooters were black – and a good number were felons themselves – who were forgiven the shooting, even while charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

And when a teen-ager, of any race, feels the sting of being “profiled” as a possible criminal, I get it, I’ve been there, for reasons good and bad.

But the reasons they get profiled are because they’re being identified, rightly or wrongly, with a high-risk group, who are, in fact, committing crimes well out of proportion to their numbers. If you dress like a thug, a vato, or cholo, guess what? People assume you’re a thug.

If we’re to have a conversation, let’s start with that. Do you think people are scurrying away when they see a group of black ladies walking down the street, dressed for church? Do they feel terrified when a middle-aged black man in a suit and tie gets on the elevator?

Nice Jack. While I was thinking of definition #2 which for the bill exactly to the garbage you are posting. Nonetheless, please note that racists must have an intent to harm people of a race (by def. 1). You can say all you want about original intent of minimum wage laws but even the biased article you posted conceded that the current intent is to benefit the poor (not just blacks). Further, minimum wage laws on balance benefit the poor ( and therefore blacks). Finally, I know of nor support and laws that would harm any children in any way.

You have once again been shown to be wrong. If you repeat the charge you will be willfully lieing which I believe is against your religious beliefs. You aren’t a hypocrite as well as a liar are you now, Jack?

Well, such harm WAS intended in BOTH the Minimum Wage laws AND in the establishment of Planned Parenthood.

I can only conclude that YOU, also, intend such harm, so you are racist. (That’s how YOU work to label those who support voter ID laws as racist. I am merely transferring your own logic to YOUR support of harmful policies.)

> I know of nor support and laws that would harm any children in any way.

You simple redefine them as “not children.” How convenient. At least it is evidence that there is something left of a conscience in you that still requires assuaging with your rhetorical BS.

Now, answer the question: Do you think there is anti-Blacks racism in employment?

You progs are famous for it. You ignore the truth that a human fetus is a human being. You ignore the truth that Minimum Wage laws have a disproportionate impact on Blacks. You ignore the fact that climate models are inherently flawed. You ignore the fact that gas mileage standards cost lives. You ignore the fact that mass shootings invariably occur in “gun free” zones.

So in this case, Troll, you really know what you’re talking about, since you practice it every day.

Which is why you want the Blacks to remain poor, and why you want more illegal immigrants (which also keep Blacks poor) — in the hope that you can drive down their labor cost to the point that you can afford them.

Written by ACTivist about 2 years ago.

Oh I am most pleasantly amused of how you play whack-a-troll, Jack. Following this dialogue closely, I see that when you play by Triberal’s rules, it is a foul. The spin and distortion that he brings to the table, when turned back against him, turns out to be his kryptonite. You expertly played his game, Jack, by his rules, and won. Next drink is on me.

” You ignore the truth that Minimum Wage laws have a disproportionate impact on Blacks”

I acknowledge that minimum wage laws have a disproportionate positive effect on blacks and all the working poor, Jack. You lie yet again.

“> Yes, I am not rich, Jack.
Which is why you want the Blacks to remain poor, and why you want more illegal immigrants (which also keep Blacks poor) — in the hope that you can drive down their labor cost to the point that you can afford them.”

“BTW, do you believe there is anti-Black discrimination in employment?”

I am sure there is, Jack.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

“Better freedom in Jackland…”

Freedom from reality. As long as you’re happy, we will try not to disturb you anymore…

Written by Eric the half a troll about 2 years ago.

“>I acknowledge that minimum wage laws have a disproportionate positive effect on blacks and all
> the working poor, Jack.
Sure, Troll, put them out of work, and they no longer qualify as “working poor.”
So why when the demonrat congress last raised the Minimum Wage, so many Blacks lost their jobs?”

I am still waiting for you to make the case that minimum wage increases have a net negative effect. You can’t seem to make that case, Jack.

Sorry I took so long to get back to you, Troll. We had guests in for the weekend, and were trying to get my daughters off on a trip to Kansas. I thought your question deserved a detailed reply, so I wrote a post to answer.